Author
Topic: What made you choose Canon in the first place? (Read 11044 times)

I picked up a Nikon 5100 and I actually kind of liked it. But then I thought to myself, why pay the same money for a Nikon that was not even made in Japan? So I went for Canon and got a 60D. Stupid reason I know. 3/4 of my friends shoot Nikon. I don't like to be asked to lend lenses. That's another reason.

Sometimes I wonder if it was the right decision. I have a 6D now. Nikon D600 seems pretty attractive. I'm not going to switch over to Nikon. The switching cost would be too high. But are there things about Canon camera, lenses, or optical technology that are superior to Nikon? I'm not really looking for validation, but I'm curious to learn more about Canon since I consider myself a newbie. Please share your views.

I went Canon after using Olympus 4/3 for years and when I was switching systems I preferred the grip and feel of Canon as well as the menu system. Seemed like it made more sense to me (perhaps more like the Oly menu's I was used to). Additionally, I considered that Canon seems to take part in all aspects of it's camera. Development of the processor, the image sensor, etc. I wanted the 60D, my wife purchased the Rebel T3i for me. It served me well for a while and I recently added a 5D mark III and love it. Most everyone I know shoots Nikon, and it is also a good system. While one has strengths over the other, in the end, I feel it is a wash and most of my Nikon shooting friends feel the same. A couple are really impressed with the video. What I like about Nikon systems is highlights in the shadow areas are just better. But I am not disappointed in the 5D3 at all and would not dream of switching to Nikon at this point in time.

I considered the 6D but ended up with the 5D Mark III for the focus system. My daughter plays on a travel basketball team and I missed a lot of shots with the T3i, not so with the 5D. I felt the focus system on the 6D was too similar to the T3i.

I still have the T3i and use it for non sports stuff with a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 on it most of the time.

When I got married in 2010, both videographer and photographer (being pals) were using Canons. I knew what to expect given that they provided me with sample footage and stills prior to signing up with them, but I didn't know that those results were from a DSLR.

I loved the final product so I thought, why pay thousands of dollars to have someone else do pictures and video when I can do it myself.Now I'm not interested becoming a professional videographer or photographer, because there is too much post-production work, where they are pretty much sleeping in front of their computers.

So long story short, I researched and researched, between Nikon and Canon, saw the slow motion craze with Canon and Twixtor, was mesmerized into buying a t3i. I just recently switched it for a 60D.

First was the superior glass canon offers. It was significantly cheaper and better than Nikon when I got into photography. Now canon's recent price strategy is making me stray away from the $1500+ lenses. I am just hoping completion from sigma, tameron and samyang drive down the prices of canon's lenses.

Second was Magic Lantern. It transforms the camera into a whole new machine. All the features and capabilities are what keeps me committed to the canon system

And third is the video capabilities. No need to explain why, since everyone knows the profound effect the 5d ii had on video.

After moving from 35mm film to an Oly p&s years ago, I decided I wanted to get back to a SLR but a digital one. Went to a camera store while on vacation, described my previous experiences to the sales guy, and he put 2 kits down on the counter in front of me: a Nikon D80 and a canon XTI. The canon just "felt" better. The rest is history.

I was shooting a Nikon F5 and canon had the EOS3 and IS lenses. Nikon did not. Canon was moving the needle, Nikon was solid but studgy. So I bit the bullet and jumped ship. Occasionally I think of going back,but not sure I ever will. Not just the sunk cost of lenses and bodies but there is no real compelling differences between the systems. Each has its plus, ...

Growing my we had Canon in my house (film slr), the we moved to point and shoots and 2/3 were canon. So when i talk my dad back into get DSLR we got a canon bc he had lens (was a canon guy too). So when I got a camera I was conferrable with a canon and nikon felt backwards to me. I was tempted by the D600 too but the cost of switching over isn't worth the money.

I picked up a Nikon 5100 and I actually kind of liked it. But then I thought to myself, why pay the same money for a Nikon that was not even made in Japan? So I went for Canon and got a 60D. Stupid reason I know. 3/4 of my friends shoot Nikon. I don't like to be asked to lend lenses. That's another reason.

Sometimes I wonder if it was the right decision. I have a 6D now. Nikon D600 seems pretty attractive. I'm not going to switch over to Nikon. The switching cost would be too high. But are there things about Canon camera, lenses, or optical technology that are superior to Nikon? I'm not really looking for validation, but I'm curious to learn more about Canon since I consider myself a newbie. Please share your views.

There are really only two things that made me go with Canon.

After a careful review of Canon's lenses and bodies and my shooting needs I figured out that what I needed most was high ISO performance and the best normal lens money can buy.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the best normal lens money can buy and the 5D Mark III has the best high ISO performance, beating the D800 by a slim margin (most sources say they perform equally but the 5D3's rated ISO is actually a quarter of a stop higher, also the noise from the 5D3 has a better more gausian distribution which responds better to NR).

I also get to play with a D600 often, it has several software features removed from the D800 to differentiate it which I didn't like, and the D800 has too many megapixels, and no sRAW mode which means the files will always be huge.

The fact that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was APO sealed the deal for me.

Right now Canon only has me by a hair.

My hope is that Canon release the following lenses pretty soon to start taking away the lead from other manufacturers in other areas:

35mm 1.4 L II50mm f/1.8 IS55mm 1.4 L (based on the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4)16-35mm f2.8 IS L, based on the Nikon patent, much better IQ.75-150mm f/2.0 IS L24-70mm f/2.8 IS

When I was looking to get my first dslr, I picked up the Nikon d80 and couldn't figure out how to operate the aperture controls in manual mode. The 40d next to it was quite easy and much more comfy in my hands.

Lenses like the 85L & 50L keep me firmly in place. Plus the 5d3 is pretty good too.

I went from a Pentax KX to a Nikon D7000. I now have both a Canon 60D and a 6D. I think that the Nikon nailed the exposures better in ambient as well as flash compared to my Canons which seem to underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop. I am finding the flash on my Canons quite frustrating in ETTL as there doesn't appear to be much consistency in the shots.I did however switch over because the photos just looked better on the Canons. The skin color is realistic on both of the Canons where as on the Nikon, was often sickly looking. Landscape photos also seem to look better on the Canons. From my limited experience, the Nikons seem to be better value but at the end of the day, its all about the photo.

The first DSLR i used in school was a Nikon D300. I liked it very much but i didn't understand the controls right It wasn't intuitive enough for me as a beginner in photography. And the second thing I didn't get about Nikon cameras was the nomenclature. It was easier for me to choose a Canon camera that fitted my needs and my bank account than it was to choose a Nikon at that point. Also i liked the controls more. I considered both, Nikon and Canon and settled with a Canon 450D, which then got upgraded to a 5D Mark II.

Started with the AE-1 when first out,upgraded to Zenza Bronica ETRS , when digital settled down after 2006 got back with canon , now have 7D,why? because it is not a Nikon , the modern glass for the canon is just so superior othwise you would see a preponderance of black lenses at sports events,this is one of many reasons.

I started with video, with the advent of HDSLR video with interchangeable lenses I saw the future, but my T1i was pathetic with video, still better than most of what was around, but 20FPS at 1080?? Terrible moire and on and on, laughable, but taught me a lot, and I eventually got into photography (well who would have guessed it's a photographic tool with a video mode) through that, now it's a 5DII and I'm shooting portraits, events and weddings.But, now that I'm getting back into video work, and Canon hasn't wowed me (or anyone) since the 5DII, and with the 5DII and IIIs inherent load of disadvantages compared to everyone else in the competition, I'm now moving to mFT with the new GH3, soon. Though, I'm both so familiar with Canon and so invested I won't leave the system behind, so far as a second camera for video, and for all of the photo work it does marvelous work, especially with such great lenses as the Sigma 35, which sure, doesn't justify staying with Canon, but it's not cheap and I have it in EF mount so again as an investment goes I'm sticking. Further reasons for sticking though, I've always preferred Canon for the ergonomics, few Nikon grips felt like they could stay in my hand, some Canon's are no good but those are the lower level ones, Nikon only made a few pro cams with grips made for human hands, where Canon understands what's comfortable and usable. And the controls, operation, what a lot of people like with Canon.